Chelsea’s stellar left-back Ashley Cole had been similarly condemned for the “evolving” nature of his claims – dismissed out of hand – that he had heard Ferdinand use the word “black”, if not “f******” and c***”.

Even the club secretary, David Barnard, was accused of being part of an attempted cover-up aimed at getting Terry off the hook.

The Sheriff of Dodge City had, it seemed, less lawlessness to deal with, although Di Matteo, while offering a less than unequivocal backing of Terry, had at least handled himself with dignity.

Beside him, Chelsea’s director of communications, Steve Atkins, had stepped in when he felt the ­questions were going too far, ­interjecting about the club’s need to avoid comment before Terry has decided whether to appeal.

Atkins was the first to notice, nudging Di Matteo to steel himself and taking the first hit himself, but forced to concede Cole’s stupid comment, with the #bunchoft**ts hashtag that went viral round the world, was “inappropriate”.

Enter, unhappily, Di Matteo, asked to address the argument that Cole’s outburst was the latest, incontrovertible evidence to justify the charge that the club is now “out of control”.

He said: “I always said the social network is a good vehicle if used ­appropriately. Players need to realise that tweets can be viewed by anybody and have to be responsible.

“Until I see Ashley’s tweet, I have no comment. Apart from this, I don’t think the players are out of control. I need to obviously see the reasoning behind it.”

There was no reasoning, merely another abandonment of self-control by a senior player.

The same lack of self-control that had been cited by commission chairman Craig Moore in what was a damning and devastating verdict, adding up to 15,000 words of personal ruin for Terry, ­condemnation for Cole and huge questions for Barnard to answer.

Throughout 63 astonishing pages, Terry’s character, integrity and what remained of his ­reputation were destroyed.

It may have taken over 11 months – far too long – for the full truth to emerge over what happened when Terry used the phrase “f****** black c***”, described by Moore as the “unholy trinity” of words.

But now the facts were out there, ­obliterating Terry’s line of defence, the testimony of Cole and Barnard’s part in compiling it, although the club are determined to stand fully behind their ­secretary, a senior member of the FA’s International Committee.

Ferdinand may have been ­criticised for his “extreme ­provocation” and “wholly ­inappropriate behaviour”.

But Moore and his colleagues, former Blackburn winger Stuart Ripley and FA councillor Maurice Armstrong, said the QPR man had in turn, been subjected to ­“deplorable and, in some instances, unlawful, abuse” which “has no place in any civilised society” from some Chelsea fans.

Yet, as so often, the spotlight fell on Terry, who gave no evidence at the hearing, with his defence against the charge based on the legalities of the FA process, rather than the substantive case.

While the commission’s crumb of comfort was a finding that Terry was “not a racist”, he was found guilty of a “racist insult”.

This made Terry’s claims – accepted as “possible” by Judge Howard Riddle when he was acquitted of racial abuse at ­Westminster Magistrates in July – that he had been merely ­challenging what he believed Ferdinand had said as simply untrue.

Moore and his colleagues stated: “Mr Terry did not hear, and could not have believed, understood or misunderstood Mr Ferdinand to have used the word ‘black’, or any words that might have suggested he was accusing Mr Terry of racially abusing him.

“The commission is quite satisfied that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry’s defence that his use of the words were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry. Instead, we are satisfied that the offending words were said by way of insult.”

Surprisingly, Terry’s red card against Barcelona in the Champions League – and his initial denials that he had done anything wrong – was used as evidence to prove the Chelsea captain does not possess, as was claimed on his behalf, “preternatural reserves of self-control”.

And Cole and Barnard were accused of “contriving” to build a corroborative report backing up Terry’s claims of what he had “heard” Ferdinand say.